When a president and a Congress collude to pass and sign into law unconstitutional power grabs, bailouts and takeovers there is only one immediate backstop: the Supreme Court. Every branch of government has an obligation to preserve, defend and uphold the Constitution, and if the legislative and executive branches overstep their boundaries, the judicial branch can stop then.

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court doesn't say "no" when the other two branches go too far, there is no tax that can't be levied, no mandate that can't be imposed, no regulation that can't be instituted and no industry that can't be taken over. The only recourse Americans have is to slowly remove and replace members of Congress and the president through the election process. But when Supreme Court judges, who are unelected and given lifetime appointments, refuse to say "no" when the Constitution says they should, it can take much longer to undo the damage.

Judges who rely on flawed precedent or their own "judgment" instead of the Constitution to justify their rulings can say "yes" to anything. This is precisely how liberal judges have rubber-stamped tyrannical actions by the government in the past and how they will do it in the future.

On these grounds, I feel compelled to oppose Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. During my private meeting with her, I asked Ms. Kagan questions about the limits of federal power. Her answers indicated her judicial philosophy is not grounded in the Constitution, and she would grant too much deference to precedent.

'Judges who rely on flawed precedent or their own "judgment" instead of the Constitution to justify their rulings can say "yes" to anything. This is precisely how liberal judges have rubber-stamped tyrannical actions by the government in the past and how they will do it in the future.'

This ought to be sufficient reason to impeach and remove them for mal- or mis-feasance in office.

Her answers indicated her judicial philosophy is not grounded in the Constitution, and she would grant too much deference to precedent.

:::::::::::

This we have known and he confirms. Now, the serious question is what will the Republicans to do stop the literal destruction of the Constitution as the core of our law allowing liberal tyrants to literally rule our country? Anyone can state facts, but only actions will stop these anti-Constitution tyrants.

Some info I came across that I might as well post here...
-
Although the mechanism for doing so exists,
NO supreme court justice has EVER been removed from office.

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices “during good behavior.” “The phrase “good behavior” has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” encompasses.

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

In 1957, at the height of McCarthyism, the Georgia General Assembly passed a joint resolution calling for “The Impeachment of Certain U.S. Supreme Court Justices” believed to be enabling Communism with their decisions. The resolution targeted Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom Campbell Clark, Felix Frankfurter, and Stanley Forman Reed (as well as several unnamed deceased Justices) for usurping the congressional power to make law in violation of Article I, Sections I and 8, and violated Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment and nullified the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Abe Fortas, who served on the Supreme Court from 1965-1969, was almost impeached due to a tax and financial scandal involving Wall Street financier, Louis Wolfson. Fortas was a Lyndon Johnson appointment. When the new President, Richard Nixon, learned of the scandal, he reportedly said Fortas should be “off of there,” referring to the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives had already taken preliminary steps toward impeachment. Chief Justice Earl Warren urged Justice Fortas to resign, to save the reputation of the Court. Fortas resisted at first, but eventually told other members of the Court he was stepping down to avoid damaging his wife’s legal career. Later, he admitted another reason for leaving the Court was to save his friend, William O. Douglas, who was also under investigation for judicial impropriety. The House of Representatives finally concluded Douglas had committed no impeachable offenses and dropped the investigation.

11
posted on 06/29/2010 2:39:27 PM PDT
by Repeal The 17th
(If November does not turn out well, then beware of December.)

That's why it's called a system of checks and balances. The lefties in Congress and the Pres_ent have both excoriated the SCOTUS for rulings which which they disagree. Both have opted to write more unconstitutional laws in hopes of dragging out the policies long enough to benefit in the next election...before the SCOTUS can slap them down again.

“Congress can trim the wings of the court under Article III Section 2, “Exceptions, and under such Regulations...”
-
“In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
-
Please be so kind as to try to ‘splain this to my thick head. Thanks.

18
posted on 06/29/2010 3:39:55 PM PDT
by Repeal The 17th
(If November does not turn out well, then beware of December.)

Trust me, if Jim can get a couple of people to help him he could care less what Hatch or anyone else says when it comes to the critical issues like this one. In fact, don't be surprised if he goes it alone on a filibuster if he has to.

Regards

22
posted on 06/29/2010 3:57:42 PM PDT
by Rashputin
(Obama is already insane and sequestered on golf courses so you won't know it)

Thanks!
...here it is pasted for the pdf impaired...
-
1
The Power of Congress to Curb the Courts
Original Intent Studies of Robert Welch University
By Don Fotheringham (7-17-09)
In recent decades there have been many proposals for amending the Constitution in an attempt to overturn federal and Supreme Court decisions. All of these efforts have failed to gain the necessary support. Moreover, the amendment process is not the proper route to correct a problem with perceived judicial abuse of interpretation when the Constitution itself is not at fault.

However, a much more effective, but little know process is immediately at hand. We are referring to the clause found in Article III, Section 2, providentially written as follows: ...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

It was never the intention of our founders to create an all-powerful, unaccountable Supreme Court. Each department of government has clearly defined bounds, but each also has oversight power that we call checks and balances. Most everyone is familiar with the presidents power to veto legislation, and the offsetting power of Congress to override it. Also well known are certain checks on power through the nomination and confirmation process, and the ultimate check of impeachment, or at least the threat thereof.

So it is with the Supreme Court. Congress has a way to prevent its perverse rulings on appellate cases. The history of our country, even before the Constitution was ratified, confirms that there never was any misunderstanding about the meaning and viability of the exceptions clause of Article III. In 1796 Oliver Ellsworth, Chief Justice of the United States recognized not merely the option, but the essence of congressional limits on the Courts appellate jurisdiction. This view was confirmed again by Chief Justice John Marshall in 18052 and has been affirmed by all Supreme Court justices who have commented on the subject.

The constitutional power of Congress to check the Court is alive today and remains one of the most timely and compelling mechanisms available to the American people through Congress. Lower court cases find their way to the Supreme Court by the appeal process. Cases generating objectionable decisions  either individually or as a group  can be singled out by Congress and excluded from review by the Supreme Court. Among landmark cases presumably corrupted by the Supreme Court are the denial of Bible reading in public schools, prohibition of school prayer, the legalizing of abortion, banning religious displays in public places, legalizing sodomy, and defending pornography. Congress clearly has the power to make exceptions to those kinds of cases and block their review by the higher court.

2
A good question arises: If Congress acts to restrain the Supreme Court, what can it do to restrain the federal district courts? For certain, many of the lower courts have exceeded their authority to interpret the law. But control of the two court systems entails two different legal routes:
The Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts cannot be limited by Congress in the same way because the two levels of the federal judiciary came into being through different levels of power. The power creating the Supreme Court was structural. It was created by the Convention of 1787, along with the mode of controlling it. On this constitutional basis, Congress may limit the Supreme Court without asking permission and without passing a pertaining law. The lower courts, on the other hand, are an entirely different breed. These district courts were created by Congress, and their jurisdiction can thus be limited only by enacting a law for doing so.

Notice that no new laws are needed to execute the work of a department when its operations and options are established by the Constitution. The president, for example, may propose a budget, nominate ambassadors, or grant pardons without asking permission or without any new laws.

Congress can make its own rules without any new laws, and the Supreme Court can try its original jurisdiction cases without asking permission. Similarly, Congress may exercise its constitutional power over the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court without asking permission or without any new laws. Exceptions to this rule are constitutional provisions that require implementing legislation. But otherwise, no department of government need hesitate or ask permission to act within its established bounds. Thus Congress may limit the kinds of cases to be heard by the Supreme Court without any new laws or supplemental authority. Obviously, the exercise of an original structural power by any branch of government is not subject to a veto by the president. This is the avenue we propose for controlling the Supreme Court.

How then, if not by passing a bill, does Congress notify the Supreme Court of new limits on its jurisdiction? This may be done by issuing a Concurrent Resolution, approved by a simple majority of the House and the Senate. Thats all. It is not a law, it is a statement through which Congress may assert a pre-existing constitutional authority, and by which the other departments of government are bound. A recent example of the use of such a resolution is H.Con.Res.5, which affirms the pre-existing constitutional power of Congress to declare war. It was introduced in the House of Representatives in the 1st Session of the 111th Congress (with the Senate concurring) expressing that, according to Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States, Congress has the sole and exclusive power to declare war. Under this heading the Whereas clauses state the reasons and applications of the resolution.

A Concurrent Resolution to limit the Supreme Court would follow the same form, expressing that, Pursuant to Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution of the United States, Congress has the sole and exclusive power to make regulations and exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, effective this date, the Congress of the United States denies the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over cases relating to public or private religious expression, definitions of marriage, sexual practice, and abortion.

3
Significantly, this Concurrent Resolution would accomplish the intended purpose while safely circumventing the desk of the president. The simplicity of this route, and the independence of Congress in following it, should be a great advantage over previously defeated efforts. All such attempts have failed to get through the Senate, where reticence to face a veto by the president  any president  is most common. The Concurrent Resolution process bypasses that particular obstacle.

Okay, that should curb the Courts passion for new decisions that distort the Constitution, but what about its past decisions? How can Congress nullify the existing immoral burdens imposed by former Supreme Courts? How for example does Congress, if so inclined, reverse Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas?

There is no instant route. The Constitution does not provide Congress the means for nullifying past Court decisions. Therefore, each overturned case will have to be taken back to the court of its origin and re-tried. Unfair? Yes, but the second time around the lawyers fighting the abuse of original intent will have a slight advantage, which will include the same files, proven arguments, decent-thinking judges, and local juries. Under these circumstances, and knowing their work will not be overturned, the lawyers can move their cases quickly through the lower courts.

29
posted on 06/29/2010 5:31:37 PM PDT
by Repeal The 17th
(If November does not turn out well, then beware of December.)

“Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.”

Kagan and the rest of her soon-to-be rat compatriots on Scotus happily exercise both judicial and legislative powers, for the common good and social justice, right?

30
posted on 06/29/2010 6:07:46 PM PDT
by Jacquerie
(A state can be virtuous only when the citizens are virtuous - Aristotle)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.